Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application for and on behalf of the four accused petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 5.3.1994, passed by Sri A.B. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, in Complaint Case No.158 of 1994 (C.R.No.807/94), whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 464, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and has directed the petitioners to stand their trial. 2. According to the allegations in the petition of complaint, opposite party no.2 herein alleged that he had instituted partition suit no.316 of 1987, at Siwan for allotment of 1/3 share in the suit property. The suit was decreed and was executed in Execution Case No.1 of 1993 on 22.8.1993, on which he had got delivery of possession of the plot of land in question. On 29.1.1994, the petitioners herein had assembled at the Darwaza of Smt. Radhika Devi conspiring to execute the plot of land in question in favour of petitioner no.1 and the purchaser had said that they shall take forcible possession of plot of land in question once deed of absolute sale was registered. Thereafter, the petitioners had gone over to the registration office at Maharajganj for registration of the deed in question, but the registration office declined to register it. Thereafter, the petitioners went to the registration office of Siwan where the same was registered. In other words, according to the allegations in the petition of complaint, the petitioners knew full well that the plot of land conveyed by the aforesaid registered sale deed had been allotted to O.P. no.2 in the aforesaid Partition suit and the delivery of possession was effected in his favour on 28.8.1993, notwithstanding which the registered deed of absolute sale was executed. On these allegations, the impugned order was passed. Hence the present quashing petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issues raised in the complaint constitute a disptue of civil nature and do not prima facie constitute an offence to go to trial. He further submitted that no offence within the meaning of Section 420 IPC is made out. He next contended that the sale deed in question was never executed. 4. Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that the facts prima facie do constitute an offence. He further submitted that no offence within the meaning of Section 420 IPC is made out. He next contended that the sale deed in question was never executed. 4. Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that the facts prima facie do constitute an offence. He also submitted that the petitioners are trying to introduce their defence which is unpermissible in a quashing petition. 5. I am unable to concede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is manifest from a plain reading of the allegations made in the petition of complaint that the petitioners had assembled at the residence of Smt. Radhika Devi (O.P. no.3), a co-sharer, who was a party in the partition suit and was fully aware of the execution proceeding as well as execution of the sale deed in question, that the plot of land in question was, in fact, allotted to the opposite party in the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid partition suit and the delivery of possession which was effected in his favour by the execution court on 28.8.1993. It is thus manifest on a plain reading that a case under Section 420 IPC is prima facie undoubtedly made out. In such circumstances, this quashing petition fails. 6. In the result, this quashing petition is dismissed, and the impugned order dated 5.3.1994, passed in Complaint Case No.158(C)/94, is hereby upheld. The trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.